Systematic review of outcomes and endpoints in acute migraine clinical trials

The impact of primary headaches on disability outcomes: a literature review and meta-analysis to inform future iterations of the Global Burden of Disease study

BACKGROUND

The burden and disability associated with headaches are conceptualized and measured differently at patients' and populations' levels. At the patients' level, through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); at population level, through disability weights (DW) and years lived with a disability (YLDs) developed by the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). DW are 0-1 coefficients that address health loss and have been defined through lay descriptions. With this literature review, we aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of disability in headache disorders, and to present a coefficient referring to patients' disability which might inform future GBD definitions of DW for headache disorders.

METHODS

We searched SCOPUS and PubMed for papers published between 2015 and 2023 addressing disability in headache disorders. The selected manuscript included a reference to headache frequency and at least one PROM. A meta-analytic approach was carried out to address relevant differences for the most commonly used PROMs (by headache type, tertiles of medication intake, tertiles of females' percentage in the sample, and age). We developed a 0-1 coefficient based on the MIDAS, on the HIT-6, and on MIDAS + HIT-6 which was intended to promote future DW iterations by the GBD consortium.

RESULTS

A total of 366 studies, 596 sub-samples, and more than 133,000 single patients were available, mostly referred to cases with migraine. Almost all PROMs showed the ability to differentiate disability severity across conditions and tertiles of medication intake. The indexes we developed can be used to inform future iterations of DW, in particular considering their ability to differentiate across age and tertiles of medication intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides reference values for the most commonly used PROMS and a data-driven coefficient whose main added value is its ability to differentiate across tertiles of age and medication intake which underlie on one side the increased burden due to aging (it is likely connected to the increased impact of common comorbidities), and by the other side the increased burden due to medication consumption, which can be considered as a proxy for headache severity. Both elements should be considered when describing disability of headache disorders at population levels.

Evaluating therapeutic benefits of ubrogepant via latent class models: A post hoc exploratory analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an alternative method of defining acute treatment success in migraine by combining multiple indicators into a single dichotomous measure of success.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is characterized by a symptom complex; combining these features as a single endpoint may improve the measurement of treatment effects and better predict patient satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

We used a confirmatory latent class model (LCM) with two latent classes interpreted as treatment success and treatment failure. Pooled data for placebo and ubrogepant 50 mg from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials and data for ubrogepant 100 mg from ACHIEVE I were used. LCM inputs included pre-dose and 2-h post-dose measures of pain severity (0-3), the presence/absence of associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia [0 or 1]), and functional disability (0-3). All definitions were validated against satisfaction with study medication (SWSM) at 24 h post-dose; results were compared with 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis included 2247 participants. At 2 h post-dose in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, 53.2% (472/887) and 54.9% (246/448) of participants, respectively, were classified as achieving treatment success using the LCM-based approach, compared to 39.0% (356/912) of participants in the placebo group. The results for treatment success using the 2hPF endpoint were 20.7% (184/887) and 21.5% (96/447) in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, respectively, compared to 12.7% (116/912) for placebo. Using 24-h SWSM as an external validator, the LCM approach sensitivity and correct classification rates were higher than for 2hPF.

CONCLUSION

The LCM approach led to higher rates of treatment success and greater separation between ubrogepant and placebo and was a more sensitive predictor of treatment satisfaction than the regulatory endpoint of 2hPF.

Variation in Endpoints in FDA Medication Approvals: A Review of Acute and Preventive Migraine Medications

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the characteristics and extent of variation of the endpoints used in trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of medications treating migraine.

METHODS

Using the Drugs@FDA online database, we identified novel prescription medications approved by the FDA between January 2001 and September 2022, for migraine with or without aura, for both acute and preventive treatment, and for episodic and chronic presentations. For each medication, we used the most recent FDA-approved labeling to identify indication, mechanism of action, mode of administration, manufacturer, approval year, number of pivotal trials, trial design, and primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixteen FDA-approved medications for the acute or preventive treatment of migraine were supported by 45 pivotal trials. There were 5 primary endpoint types: (1) change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline; (2) change in mean monthly migraine attacks from baseline; (3) change in mean monthly headache days from baseline; (4) mild to no pain After 2 hours; (5) pain free at 2 hours. There were 3 combinations of coprimary endpoints: (1) Headache Pain Free at 2 Hours and Most Bothersome Symptom Free at 2 Hours; (2) Pain Free at 2 Hours and Sustained Pain Free from 2-24 Hours Postdose; (3) Pain Free at 2 Hours and 2-24 Hours Sustained Pain Free and 2-Hour Pain Relief. Of the 8 preventive migraine medications, the timing of endpoint measurement included the full double-blind period, segments of the double-blind period, and the final month of the double-blind period.

DISCUSSION

Migraine medication trial endpoints were inconsistent within the same indication (episodic or chronic), mechanistic class, and route of administration, frustrating direct comparison among these medications. Furthermore, inconsistent definitions for the indications "episodic" and "chronic" migraine were also observed. Consistent endpoint selection for medications approved for preventive and acute migraine treatment would enhance the ability of patients, physicians, and payers to make informed choices among these medications.

Priority acute and preventive migraine treatment benefits: Results of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) qualitative study of people living with migraine

BACKGROUND

There is renewed emphasis on including patients in determining, defining, and prioritizing outcomes for migraine treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To obtain insights directly from people living with migraine on their priorities for treatment.

METHODS

A total of 40 qualitative interviews were conducted as part of the Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System project, a United States Food and Drug Administration grant-funded program to develop a core set of patient-centered outcome measures for migraine clinical trials. Interviews included a structured exercise in which participants rank-ordered pre-defined lists of potential benefits for acute and preventive migraine therapy. The 40 study participants who reported being diagnosed with migraine by a clinician ranked the benefits and explained their rationale.

RESULTS

Study participants consistently ranked either pain relief or absence of pain as their top priority for acute treatment. Relief/absence of other migraine symptoms and improved functioning were also prioritized. For preventive treatment, participants prioritized reductions in migraine frequency, symptom severity, and attack duration. Few differences were found between participants with episodic migraine and those with chronic migraine. However, participants with chronic migraine ranked "increased predictability of attacks" much higher than those with episodic migraine. Participants' rankings were influenced by prior expectations and experiences of migraine treatments, which caused many participants to deprioritize desired benefits as unrealistic. Participants also identified several additional priorities, including limited side-effects and reliable treatment efficacy in both acute and preventive treatments.

CONCLUSION

The results showed the participants prioritized treatment benefits aligned with existing core clinical outcomes used in migraine research, but also valued benefits that are not typically assessed, such as predictability. Participants also deprioritized important benefits when they believed treatment was unlikely to deliver those outcomes.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review

Migraine is considered one of the most disabling diseases. Currently, there are few studies on clinical migraine treatment based on sex-related differences, despite the important role of sex in migraine. Our aim was to evaluate gender bias in published clinical trials on monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab). We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published before December 2021. The search identified 760 articles, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all the patients included in these trials, 85.1% were women. Only one study had female lead authors. Two of the 25 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. None of the articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. The proportion of men recruited in trials is scarce and more studies are needed to guarantee the safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies used in male migraine. As observed in our study, despite the high number of women recruited, only 2 studies analysed the results separately by sex. Thus, a potential risk of gender bias was found in these clinical trials.

Validation of the Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale (version 2) as a headache-specific photophobia assessment tool

OBJECTIVE

To present an updated version of the Utah Photophobia Symptom Impact Scale version 2 (UPSIS2), providing robust clinical and psychometric validation, to improve headache-specific evaluation of light sensitivity and headache-related photophobia.

BACKGROUND

The original UPSIS filled a gap in available tools for assessment of headache-associated light sensitivity by providing patient-reported evaluation of the impact of light sensitivity on activities of daily living (ADLs). We have since revised the original questionnaire to provide a more robust item construct and refined validation approach.

METHODS

We conducted a psychometric validation of the UPSIS2 through a primary analysis of an online survey of volunteers with recurrent headaches recruited from the University of Utah clinics and surrounding community. Volunteers completed the original UPSIS and UPSIS2 questionnaire versions in addition to measures of headache impact, disability, and frequency. The UPSIS2 now includes a pre-defined recall period and a 1-4 Likert scale with standardized response anchors to improve clarity. Internal construct validity, external construct validity, and test-retest reliability, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 163 volunteers, with UPSIS2 scores ranging from 15 to 57 (out of a possible 15-60) with a mean (standard deviation) of 32.4 (8.80). Construct validity was satisfactory, as evidenced by sufficient unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence. Reliability was excellent, with Rasch test reliability = 0.90 and Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, and an intraclass correlation of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.65-0.88) for participants who took the test twice. UPSIS2 correlates well with other headache measures (Spearman's correlations >0.50), as well as the original UPSIS (Spearman's correlation = 0.87), indicating good convergent validity. UPSIS2 scores differ significantly across International Classification of Headache Disorders (third edition) groups, indicating good known group validity.

CONCLUSION

The UPSIS2 provides a well-validated headache-specific outcome measure for the assessment of photophobia impact on ADLs.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.

Patient-reported experiences with migraine-related cognitive symptoms: Results of the MiCOAS qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To capture patients' perspectives on migraine-related cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, headache, post-headache, and interictal periods.

BACKGROUND

Migraine-related cognitive symptoms are reported by people with migraine both during and between attacks. Associated with disability, they are increasingly viewed as a priority target for treatment. The Migraine Clinical Outcome Assessment System (MiCOAS) project is focused on developing a patient-centered core set of outcome measures for the evaluation of migraine treatments. The project focuses on incorporating the experience of people living with migraine and the outcomes most meaningful to them. This includes an examination of the presence and functional impact of migraine-related cognitive symptoms and their perceived impact on quality of life and disability.

METHODS

Forty individuals with self-reported medically diagnosed migraine were recruited via iterative purposeful sampling for semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted using audio-only web conferencing. Thematic content analysis was performed to identify key concepts around migraine-related cognitive symptoms. Recruitment continued until concept saturation was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described symptoms consistent with migraine-related deficits in language/speech, sustained attention, executive function, and memory that manifest during pre-headache (36/40 [90%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), headache (35/40 [88%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), post-headache (27/40 [68%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature), and interictal periods (13/40 [33%] reported ≥1 cognitive feature). Among participants reporting cognitive symptoms during pre-headache, 32/40 (81%) endorsed 2-5 cognitive symptoms. Findings were similar during the headache phase. Participants reported language/speech problems consistent with, for example, impairments in receptive language, expressive language, and articulation. Issues with sustained attention included fogginess, confusion/disorientation, and trouble with concentration/focus. Deficits in executive function included difficulty processing information and reduced capacity for planning and decision-making. Memory issues were reported across all phases of the migraine attack.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level qualitative study suggests that cognitive symptoms are common for persons with migraine, particularly in the pre-headache and headache phases. These findings highlight the importance of assessing and ameliorating these cognitive problems.

Additional effects of pain neuroscience education combined with physiotherapy on the headache frequency of adult patients with migraine: A randomized controlled trial

Aim To assess the efficacy of pain neuroscience education combined with physiotherapy for the management of migraine.Background Physiotherapy can significantly reduce the frequency of migraine, but the evidence is based only on a few studies. Pain neuroscience education might pose a promising treatment, as it addresses migraine as a chronic pain disease.Methods In this non-blinded randomized controlled trial, migraine patients received physiotherapy + pain neuroscience education or physiotherapy alone, preceded by a three-month waiting period. Primary outcomes were frequency of headache (with and without migraine features), frequency of migraine and associated disability.Results Eighty-two participants were randomized and analyzed. Both groups showed a decrease of headache frequency (p = 0.02, d = 0.46) at post-treatment (physiotherapy: 0.77 days, 95%CI: -0.75 to 2.29 and physiotherapy + pain neuroscience education: 1.25 days, 95%CI: -0.05 to 2.55) and at follow-up (physiotherapy: 1.93, 95%CI: 0.07 to 3.78 and physiotherapy + pain neuroscience education: 3.48 days, 95%CI: 1.89 to 5.06), with no difference between groups (p = 0.26, d = 0.26). Migraine frequency was reduced significantly in the physiotherapy + pain neuroscience education group, and not in the physiotherapy group, at post-treatment (1.28 days, 95%CI: 0.34 to 2.22, p = 0.004) and follow-up (3.05 days, 95%CI: 1.98 to 5.06, p < 0.0001), with a difference between groups at follow-up (2.06 days, p = 0.003). Migraine-related disability decreased significantly in both groups (physiotherapy: 19.8, physiotherapy + pain neuroscience education: 24.0 points, p < 0.001, d = 1.15) at follow-up, with no difference between groups (p = 0.583). Secondary outcomes demonstrated a significant effect of time with no interaction between time and group. No harm or adverse events were observed during the study.Conclusion In comparison to physiotherapy alone, pain neuroscience education combined with physiotherapy can further reduce the frequency of migraine, but had no additional effect on general headache frequency or migraine-related disability.Trial Registration The study was pre-registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00020804).

Beyond pain control: Outcome and treatment preferences in pediatric migraine

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures among children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND

Across disciplines, there is increasing recognition of the value of direct input from stakeholders. Little empirical work has been done to determine what outcomes matter most to pediatric patients with migraine and their caregivers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we recruited participants from the multicenter, prospective Pediatric Migraine Registry. We used stratified purposive sampling to recruit children and adolescents of varied ages and headache frequency. Patients with migraine and their caregivers completed semistructured interviews targeting treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures. Emergent themes and subthemes were identified using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty dyads of children/adolescents and their caregivers were enrolled and completed 59 interviews (n = 29 children/adolescent interviews and n = 30 caregiver interviews). Three themes emerged. (1) Symptom relief: Looking beyond headache resolution: Participants described the value of outcomes in addition to pain relief, including a reduction in migraine intensity and improvement in non-pain symptoms. (2) Trade-offs between side effects and relief: Participants described cost-benefit analyses that can occur with headache treatment and acknowledged the impact of drug side effects on daily life and medication adherence. (3) Child-centered treatment: Participants described medication attributes salient to the pediatric context, including age-appropriate routes of administration and adequate safety data.

CONCLUSIONS

Children, adolescents, and caregivers impacted by migraine value outcomes in addition to traditionally studied migraine endpoints. Participants valued decreased pain severity, even in the absence of pain resolution. Participants also prioritized the absence of side effects and key medication attributes, including fast onset and age-appropriate routes of administration. These results highlight an opportunity to design patient-centered clinical trials, develop drugs, and support product labeling that align with the outcomes valued most by children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

Functionality, satisfaction, and global impression of change with ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in triptan insufficient responders: a post hoc analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II randomized trials

Background

Triptans are the first-line option for the acute treatment of migraine attacks; however, triptans are contraindicated in people with certain underlying cardiovascular risk factors and are associated with inadequate efficacy or poor tolerability in some individuals. Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ACHIEVE trials examined the impact of ubrogepant on the Functional Disability Scale (FDS), satisfaction with medication, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in participants who were self-reported triptan insufficient responders (TIRs), defined as those who are unable to take triptans due to contraindications, tolerability issues, or insufficient efficacy. Responder definitions for the FDS, satisfaction measures, and PGIC were based on qualitative interpretation of the respective response options for the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 451 (25%) participants were TIRs, with most (80%) reporting insufficient efficacy with triptan use. A significantly higher proportion of TIRs treated with ubrogepant vs placebo reported being able to function normally from 2 to 8 h post dose (P < 0.05). Notably, significance was demonstrated at the time of the primary outcome assessments (2 h post dose), where rates of normal function were 38% for ubrogepant vs 29% for placebo (P = 0.048). A greater proportion of TIRs in the ubrogepant arm vs the placebo arm were satisfied with treatment at 2 (33% vs 21%, P = 0.006) and 24 h (58% vs 28%, P < 0.001) and indicated that their migraine improved at 2 h vs placebo (30% vs 18%, P = 0.006). Results were generally similar in the insufficient efficacy subpopulation of TIRs as in the overall TIRs group. Ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in TIRs, with no new safety signals identified.

Conclusions

In people with migraine who are TIRs, individuals treated with ubrogepant had favorable 2-h outcomes, as measured by the FDS, satisfaction with medication, and PGIC, compared with placebo.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), registered July 11, 2016; NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), registered August 16, 2016.

Evaluating the clinical utility of the patient-identified most bothersome symptom measure from PROMISE-2 for research in migraine prevention

Objective

To assess the utility of the novel patient‐identified (PI) most bothersome symptom (MBS) measure from PROMISE‐2, a phase 3 trial of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

Background

Relief of bothersome migraine symptoms can influence satisfaction with treatment and therapeutic persistence. Understanding the impact of preventive treatment on a PI‐MBS could improve clinical decision‐making.

Methods

In PROMISE‐2, patients with chronic migraine received eptinezumab 100, 300 mg, or placebo administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to 2 doses (n = 1072). PI‐MBS was an exploratory outcome requiring each patient to self‐report their MBS in response to an open‐ended question. At baseline and week 12, patients rated overall improvement in PI‐MBS. The relationships among PI‐MBS at week 12 and change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to month 3 (weeks 9–12), Patient Global Impression of Change at week 12, and changes from baseline to week 12 in the 6‐item Headache Impact Test total, EuroQol 5‐dimensions 5‐levels visual analog scale, and 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey component scores were assessed.

Results

Treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics and reported a total of 23 unique PI‐MBS, most commonly light sensitivity (200/1072, 18.7%), nausea/vomiting (162/1072, 15.1%), and pain with activity (147/1072, 13.7%). Improvements in PI‐MBS at week 12 correlated with changes in MMDs (ρ = −0.49; p < 0.0001) and other patient‐reported outcomes. Controlling for changes in MMDs, PI‐MBS improvement predicted other patient‐reported outcomes in expected directions. The magnitude of the standardized mean differences between placebo and active treatment for PI‐MBS were 0.31 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) and 0.54 (p < 0.0001 vs. placebo) for eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg, respectively.

Conclusions

Improvement in PI‐MBS at week 12 was associated with improvement in other patient‐reported outcome measures, and PI‐MBS may be an important patient‐centered measure of treatment benefits in patients with chronic migraine.

Eptinezumab treatment initiated during a migraine attack is associated with meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcome measures: secondary results from the randomized controlled RELIEF study

Background

Demonstrating therapeutic value from the patient perspective is important in patient-centered migraine management. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of eptinezumab, a preventive migraine treatment, on patient-reported headache impact, acute medication optimization, and perception of disease change when initiated during a migraine attack.

Methods

RELIEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 2019 and 2020 in adults with ≥1-year history of migraine and 4–15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1–6 h of a qualifying migraine attack onset. The 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and 6-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-6) were administered at baseline and week 4, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at week 4. A post hoc analysis of these measures was conducted in patients who reported headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Results

Of 480 patients enrolled and treated, 476 completed the study and are included in this analysis. Mean baseline HIT-6 total scores indicated severe headache impact (eptinezumab, 65.1; placebo, 64.8). At week 4, the eptinezumab-treated group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in HIT-6 total score compared with placebo (mean change from baseline: eptinezumab, − 8.7; placebo, − 4.5; mean [95% CI] difference from placebo: − 4.2 [− 5.75, − 2.63], P < .0001), with greater reductions in each item score vs placebo (P < .001 all comparisons). Change in HIT-6 total score in the subgroup with 2-h headache pain freedom was − 13.8 for the eptinezumab group compared with − 4.9 for the placebo group. mTOQ-6 total score mean change from baseline favored eptinezumab (change, 2.1) compared with placebo (1.2; mean [95% CI] difference: 0.9 [0.3, 1.5], P < .01). More eptinezumab-treated patients rated PGIC as much or very much improved than placebo patients (59.3% vs 25.9%).

Conclusions

When administered during a migraine attack, eptinezumab significantly improved patient-reported outcomes after 4 weeks compared with placebo, with particularly pronounced effects in patients reporting headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04152083. November 5, 2019.

The importance of an early onset of migraine preventive disease control: A roundtable discussion

Background:

Newly approved migraine preventive therapies have allowed for rapid control of migraine activity, offering potential to minimize the burden of migraine. This report summarizes a roundtable discussion convened to analyze evidence for early onset of prevention, ascertain its clinical relevance, and provide guidance for healthcare professionals in crafting goals and treatment expectations for patients with migraine initiating preventive therapy.

Methods:

A virtual roundtable meeting of migraine clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates convened in October 2020. Participants reviewed and discussed data summarizing patient and healthcare professional perceptions of migraine prevention and evidence from the peer-reviewed and gray literature to develop corresponding recommendations.

Summary:

Evidence from clinical studies of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) and the chemodenervation agent onabotulinumtoxinA indicate that patients may experience reduction of migraine activity within 7 days of drug administration and early attainment of disease control is associated with improvements in clinically important outcomes. The roundtable of experts proposes that early onset be defined as demonstration of preventive benefits within 1 week of treatment initiation. We recommend focusing discussion with patients around “disease control” and potential benefits of early onset of prevention, so patients can set realistic preventive therapy goals and expectations.

Are PROMs passing the message? A reflection with real-life migraine patients

BACKGROUND

Several patient-reported outcome measures are available to monitor headache impact, but are those reliable in real-life clinical practice?

METHODS

Two identical patient-reported outcome measures (HALT-90 and MIDAS) were applied simultaneously in each clinical visit to a series of patients treated with monoclonal antibodies for migraine and intra-individual agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Our sample included 92 patients, 92.4% females, 45 years old on average. Moderate (0.50 to 0.75) and even poor (<0.50) ICC were observed in all but the first item of these patient-reported outcome measures in at least one evaluation. Over time, missing data were more frequent and no learning effect was detected.

DISCUSSION

We observed intra-personal variation in reliability when answering patient-reported outcome measures, persisting in repeated applications, and a decrease in the motivation to respond, which should alert clinicians for these additional challenges in real-life clinical practice.

Measuring headache day severity using multiple features in daily diary designs

OBJECTIVE

Though migraine is thought of as a symptom complex, symptoms are typically assessed one at a time. For use in clinical research, we developed a composite measure of headache day severity by combining eight well-known symptoms captured in daily diaries.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Data came from adults with a self-reported diagnosis of migraine (n  =  4380) who provided daily diary information assessed using a novel digital platform. Nine observed features theoretically linked to headache day severity were analyzed using latent variable modeling to create a psychometrically robust headache day severity score. Logistic regression was used to assess the cross-sectional relationships of headache day severity scores against an array of clinically-relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants were largely females (90%), approaching middle age (mean age of 37.3) and living in the United States (49%) or United Kingdom (23%). Findings supported a single latent headache day severity construct based on eight observed headache features. Headache day severity scores were associated with an increased odds of physician visits (Odds ratio[95% CI]: 1.71[1.32-2.21]), emergency department visits (4.12[2.23-7.60]), missed school/work (2.90[2.56-3.29]), missed household work (3.37[3.06-3.72]), and missed other activities (3.29[2.97-3.64]) (p < .0001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Modern measurement techniques support a single headache day severity construct that reflects migraine is a symptom complex. The headache day severity scores were associated with external validators and initial visualizations showed how headache day severity scores can be applied broadly in clinical practice and research.

Learning the full impact of migraine through patient voices: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize the ways that migraine affects multiple domains of life.

BACKGROUND

Further understanding of migraine burden is needed.

METHODS

Adults with migraine randomized to mindfulness-based stress reduction or headache education arms (n = 81) in two separate randomized clinical trials participated in semistructured in-person qualitative interviews conducted after the interventions. Interviews queried participants on migraine impact on life and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and summarized into a framework matrix. A master codebook was created until meaning saturation was reached and magnitude coding established code frequency. Themes and subthemes were identified using a constructivist grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Despite most participants being treated with acute and/or prophylactic medications, 90% (73/81) reported migraine had a negative impact on overall life, with 68% (55/81) endorsing specific domains of life impacted and 52% (42/81) describing impact on emotional health. Six main themes of migraine impact emerged: (1) global negative impact on overall life; (2) impact on emotional health; (3) impact on cognitive function; (4) impact on specific domains of life (work/career, family, social); (5) fear and avoidance (pain catastrophizing and anticipatory anxiety); and (6) internalized and externalized stigma. Participants reported how migraine (a) controls life, (b) makes life difficult, and (c) causes disability during attacks, with participants (d) experiencing a lack of control and/or (e) attempting to push through despite migraine. Emotional health was affected through (a) isolation, (b) anxiety, (c) frustration/anger, (d) guilt, (e) mood changes/irritability, and (f) depression/hopelessness. Cognitive function was affected through concentration and communication difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine has a global negative impact on overall life, cognitive and emotional health, work, family, and social life. Migraine contributes to isolation, frustration, guilt, fear, avoidance behavior, and stigma. A greater understanding of the deep burden of this chronic neurological disease is needed to effectively target and treat what is most important to those living with migraine.